Bill to lower insurance industry support for earthquake coverage

Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, CA -- California homeowners who buy earthquake insurance through a state-run authority could see their premiums rise under a bill that passed an Assembly committee Thursday over opposition from the state treasurer and consumer advocates.

When the California Earthquake Authority was established in 1996 two years after the Northridge earthquake, participating insurance companies were required to provide $2.2 billion to help underwrite it. They were to keep that money in reserve through Dec. 1, 2008.

That arrangement is about to expire and insurance companies want out of it. Sen. Mike Machado, D-Linden, wants to replace it with a new one in which insurance companies would be required to keep $1.2 billion available to the authority for up to 12 years.

The result could be higher rates for the more than 760,000 homeowners who have quake coverage through the authority, California's largest provider of earthquake insurance.

The legislation was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee, even as some committee members expressed reservations about the change and indicated they might oppose it when the bill comes up for a vote in the full Assembly.

"The chief policy objective should not be, 'What legislation does the industry support?'" Doug Heller, executive director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a Santa Monica-based consumer group, told the committee. "The only question (should be), 'What makes the CEA more stable and CEA policies more affordable?' This proposal goes in the opposite direction."

State Treasurer Bill Lockyer predicted the deal would force the California Earthquake Authority to raise its rates, which now average about $700 a year, by another 8.5 percent.

He urged lawmakers to extend the industry's $2.2 billion obligation until the authority has $6 billion in cash reserves. Currently it has only $2.7 billion, he said.

Absent that, he said he wanted Machado to amend the bill to take him off the authority board.

"I don't want to be associated with an undercapitalized fig leaf," Lockyer said. "I just don't think it's conscionable."

Machado said he had no choice but to work out a compromise with insurers because the $2.2 billion commitment expires in just over a year.

He conceded the bill was a "Band-Aid for chaos" that would not solve all the authority's problems. But he said waiting until next year to consider what to do about the authority's funding, as Lockyer suggested, would only make the decision tougher.

"We will be back here at the same time with the same discussion and trying to see whether or not we can extend the sunset," he said. "There probably is going to be greater political difficulty in trying to extend the sunset then. ... There would be more incentive on the part of insurers to say, "Why should I play when the sunset is going to come in?'"

The likelihood of a rate increase would depend on how much the authority has to pay for the insurance it buys called reinsurance to help cover its claims, said Tim Richison, the authority's chief financial officer and acting chief executive officer.

"If economic conditions are favorable, we may be able to purchase an increased amount of reinsurance for the same amount we're spending today," he said in an interview Wednesday. "There's no guarantee that just because we have to buy more reinsurance we have to spend more money."

He said that in addition to the $1.2 billion commitment required by the Machado bill, insurers also have a second, $1.4 billion underwriting obligation under an original provision of the earthquake authority.

The authority was created by legislation in 1996 after many insurers threatened to stop doing business in California rather than being forced by law to offer earthquake coverage, along with traditional homeowners insurance.

It is run by a board made up of the governor, insurance commissioner, state treasurer and two nonvoting representatives of the Legislature.

Insurance companies that agreed to join the authority and sell its policies had to pay startup costs, plus the underwriting obligations. The $1.4 billion commitment is supposed to be phased out as the authority's cash reserves exceed $6 billion.

The authority has about 72 percent of the homeowner earthquake insurance market in California.

Only about 13 percent of homeowners have earthquake coverage, either through the authority or a private insurer. Those going without coverage apparently prefer to run the risk of major losses rather than pay rates that can run several thousand dollars a year, depending on the location, size, value, age and construction of the house.

Lockyer said homeowners without coverage apparently expect the state and federal governments to bail them out when California is hit by another major quake.

He suggested that the Legislature should give insurers the choice of adequately funding the authority or abolishing it and leaving coverage up to private insurers.

"It doesn't make sense for us to have a little tiny market niche so the insurance industry doesn't even have to work at providing a private market," he said.

Machado said most insurers don't want to provide earthquake coverage themselves.

On the Net: Read the bill, SB430, at http://www.senate.ca.gov.

Rate This Article:

Comments:

Post A Comment

You are not logged in, please do so at the top of the page.

Recent Posts in Affordable Car & Home Insurance:

Will 'progressives' let middle class burn to prove their point?

When Anthem Blue Cross announced its controversial premium increases in California recently, the insurer claimed, "a carrier must be able to receive actuarially sound rates." So it is remarkable that "progressive" San Francisco State Senator Mark Leno, a single payer health care advocate, recently introduced eleventh hour legislation codifying Anthem Blue Cross's "actuarially sound" defense of premium increases in law.

Read More »

Insurers hold death benefits for more profit

Life insurers are facing broad criticism for profiting from the death benefits of soldiers and other life insurance policyholders after a claim is supposed to be paid...

Read More »

Corporate "smart initiatives" will test California voters' smarts Tuesday

During my two decades battling in California's ballot initiative process never before have large corporations been poised to gain so much so cleverly as in next Tuesday's election.

Industries have long tried to lard ballots...

Read More »

Health insurance premium curbs are catching on

Consumer Watchdog's calls for tough and open health insurance rate regulation are being echoed and amplified. The latest instance is in Connecticut, the home state of insurance companies, where Attorney General Earl Blumenthal recently proposed major reforms that would require the state to review and reject, modify or allow a rate change before it goes into effect. No more shrugging and letting it happen without a public review.

Read More »

Jerry Brown gets it right on Prop 17's Title & Summary

California Attorney General Jerry Brown has issued his final ballot label for Proposition 17, the Mercury Insurance-financed ballot measure to surcharge those with lapses in auto insurance coverage.  Brown got the ballot label right this time, acknowledging Prop 17 allowed insurers to increase premiums, as well as lower prices, based on whether a driver has a lapse in insurance coverage.

Read More »

View All Next »

Forward This Page To A Friend

Celebrating 20 Years of Prop 103

Prop 103 Credited with $61.7 Billion in Savings